Bless me, Patrick Henry, for I have sinned. I consider myself somewhat intelligent. And I keep asking myself why have I become politically schizophrenic? I was once a very staunch Republican. That was in the days of Ronald Reagan. Once he was gone, it’s almost like the false security Reagan provided was ripped out from under me. Oh, I know, the Reagan worshipers will swear that were it not for Ronnie communism would be thriving in Eastern Europe. Perhaps it would. Of course, to take any credit away from John Paul II and Mikhail Gorbachev is to ignore the reality of history. But that’s a debate for another day. The bottom line is that I’ve got to stop looking at the political leaders of days past and concentrate on what’s going on today. Frankly, I’ve been torn in so many directions that I wonder if I can cast a vote in November based on a reasonable assessment of issues.
Last week I watched the Democrats in Denver anoint Barack Obama. There’s no doubt about it. Regardless of political party affiliation there’s something to be said for a major political party nominating a black man to the Oval Office. We’ve come along way, but like everything else, I get the feeling that it’s all fluff. Politicians appeal to us with catch phrases and sound clips. While the liberals complain about the Fox News Channel and its tribe of uber-conservatives, what about MSNBC? Until this weekend I was an avowed MSNBC fan. But the apparent love affair between MSNBC personalities and the Obama campaign has left me with a sour taste. I’d give anything for Tim Russert to be here. I honestly believe that he would have tempered that love fest. So, of the big three cable news channels that leaves CNN. Fair and balanced? Sometimes. Honest news broadcasting? Not a chance. No major news organization operates on the basic principles of a free and objective press. What was the point of our forefathers fighting for freedom? What was the point of John Peter Zenger? Are these United States the last best bastion of freedom? Ultimately, can a society be “free” when those upon whom we depend for information have advertisers and ratings dictating every report?
This week the Republicans are anointing John McCain. There’s no doubt in my mind that the Republican Party’s embrace of him is weak at best. And this concerns me as well. There was a time when John McCain represented the rank and file in America. He was the maverick. He was a singular voice for change in Congress. Then he ran for President and became a victim of the ultra-right Bush whackers, especially in South Carolina. And what did he do? He rolled over, plain and simple. He entered into a marriage contract with George W. Bush that left us all holding an empty bag. There’s a part of me that holds on to the belief that John McCain still has a few of those “maverick” qualities. But, to be blunt, it would be too little, and way too late for the old McCain to resurface. Everyone has their price and McCain paid it when he executed this alliance with the Bush White House. Once again, Middle America loses.
Article comments
1 - Baritone
Interesting article. I agree heartily with some of what you say. But, I am curious about your position regarding the reliablity of MSM news reporting when you say:
"Honest news broadcasting? Not a chance."
In what way? What are they leaving out? How are they distorting the news? What specific proof or instances can you cite?
Now I know that Fox has become the media growler for the right, and apparently MSNBC has taken on the same mantle for the left. I agree that CNN has remained more or less neutral. Additionally, the major networks, ABC, CBS and NBC have, IMO, remained neutral as well. Even NPR and PBS have gone out of their way to convey as even handed reporting as possible. PBS has pretty much aired all of the speakers at both conventions during their broadcasts with only a relative smattering of commentary. Perhaps I just don't get it. But, what do you want from the media? What do you expect? How can they possibly render their coverage of the conventions and the larger campaigns more even handedly?
The fact is that the moment some anchor, commentator or reporter opens his or her mouth, someone will no doubt take umbrage against them regardless of what is being said or how it is being said. Viewers and listeners have their own agendas, their own preconceptions and bias. All in all, I feel that in most cases, reporters usually do a herculean job of stepping back and allowing the events and/or the individuals involved to run their course and have their say. Most of the attendant speculation comes after the fact and usually includes all possible reponses and ramifications for viewer/listener consideration.
Sometimes a reporter plays devil's advocate which, IMO, is part of their job. I watched Tom Brokaw's interview of Barack Obama on 'Meet the Press' just after Tim Russert's death. Everyone assumes that Brokaw is a leftist, and he probably is. But I never felt that he pulled any punches with Obama. He threw a number of hardball questions at him. Brokaw may lean left politically, but first and foremost, he is a news man.
It just seems to me that it is "in" to assume that the so called MSM is full of shit; that it provides no real news, no truth, and that it serves only as a mouth piece for corporate America. Perhaps it's true, but frankly, I have seen no evidence of it. But, then, I have always been a "maverick" in most things. Mavericks are, when it comes down to it, both the salt of the earth and a pain in the ass. So be it.
B
2 - Matthew T. Sussman
Nalle/Kain '08
3 - Jet
I'd like everyone to put down their pea shooters and stop making spitballs and pay attention-PLEASE.
I have a math problem that doesn't make sense, and I'd like a serious answer to a serious question, with no smartass replies from the peanut gallery.
I have an algebra question that's bugging the hell out of me.
The Dems refuse to listen, or even compromise with the GOP.
The GOP refuses to listen or even compromise with the Dems.
Whichever party wins, the other will do its best to reduce its polital opponents to zero effectiveness. It happened with Clinton, It's happening with Bush.
Now with the plusses and minuses on both sides of this algebra equation reduced to their lowest factors it should equal 1=1. But since both consider the other side zero, that'd make it 0=0.
Now in either case, the answer is 1 (as in one nation, but some how I keep coming up with two halves.
what am I doing wrong? and is it possible to fix this equation into something workable.
...wait while I duck for cover, please...
4 - Matthew T. Sussman
Serious response: I have no fucking clue what you just said.
5 - Jet
Imagine my surprise
6 - Silas Kain
Jet, my friend, the problem is that we're one nation on paper unless all of a sudden we're hit with something like (dare I bring this up) 9/11. I guarantee you that a terrorist attack on our land before the Presidential election would tip the balance in favor of McCain. And I think, based upon our past behavior, that my theory is quite reasonable. I haven't forgotten how we rallied around this President after 9/11.
We are a short-sighted society and when we get hit smack in the middle of one of our cities, we rally around whatever leader is in power. Did we rally out of a sense of patriotism? Or did we rally out of a sense of profound fear? I blame the media for a lot of that rally. Even they were very fearful to criticize this President and his Administration at that time. My friends, that was the most un-American thing we could have done. If there is a lesson to be learned from 9/11 it is that we can unite as a nation in time of crisis. Only in that unity we must hold fast the right to question, probe and receive the facts. Political transparency must never be sacrificed for the common good even in times of war.
7 - Jet
With the 50-50 split in the elections and polls, I don't hold out a lot of hope. Now if you could get Suss to understand that.
I have my doubts.
I seriously think he does, but if I said the sky was blue, he'd jump in immediately and say "You asshole it's 3 in the morning and it's black.
Good night sweet prince, I'm off to bed.
8 - Jet
By the way, when I finished polishing the Brokeback novel-I moved it to its own custom site. I left the lawyer's name Silas Caine. You'll find the url by going down the table of contents at my website at the url above.
9 - Silas Kain
Suss: Nalle/Kain '08
Thanks, dude. I appreciate your support. Come on over to Dave's talk show tomorrow night/morning. I'm hoping to call in and feed the fuels of political fire.
And - thanks for the mention, Jet. I'll check it out.
10 - Baritone
Sorry Silas, I thought I'd brought up a relevant question regarding your article. I must have missed the point. I don't know if it's the drugs or just the natural progression of my dementia.
B
11 - Silas Kain
Bar, I'm trying to sort out in my mind what pisses me off most about the MSM. I've met many newspaper folks along the way in my life. And a common thread in the discussions is the fact that local advertisers do play a role in how a local newspaper editor approaches local news stories. On a national level it seems that editors remain cognizant of ratings and placement of articles above the fold. A picture of Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol splashed on the front page with the headline "Family Tragedy" at newsstands does leave an impression and attract buyers. Perhaps it's not fair to use TV Guide in this analogy but how many times have they and other national magazines tested various covers in various markets to see what sells? I would rather read six pages about ongoing legislation in Congress and the positions of members than read about how Sarah Palin eats moose burgers.
The Federal Elections Commission should be the best friend of every journalist and informed voter. When I consider my vote at any level of political office, I do research. I look at the money trail. And if I see something that seems out of whack, I question it. If you start sorting through the database for your respective Congressperson and Senators you may be a bit surprised at where the money is coming from.
12 - Joanne Huspek
"If I cast my ballot in an informed manner, I would be writing in Ron Paul or Dave Nalle."
Here, here. Why don't more Americans vote their conscience, instead of trying to come up on the "winning" side? Or why is sometimes a race between the "lesser of two evils?"
It takes you and me to take the initiative and make a stand if we aren't happy. That's the only way things will change.
13 - Dave Nalle
Silas, having worked in the magazine business I can tell you that for a large portion of the magazine market the content published is dictated directly by advertisers. In some magazines the content is essentially written by or to the specifications of the advertisers, and there's no absolute way to tell on the surface which magazines are trying to be journalistically objective and which are totally whoring for their advertisers.
Dave
14 - Christopher Rose
Dave, it's not really possible to generalise like that, although I have seen how much you like misleading generalisations.
In most reputable magazines there is a very clear distinction between advertising and editorial. Most advertisers are interested in readership profiles and select where they choose to advertise accordingly.